Julian Assange has a new member of his defence team – Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, who once served as an adviser on OJ Simpson's legal counsel.
The WikiLeaks' founder's head lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC asked Dershowitz, who has famously defended clients that include Claus von Bülow, Michael Milken and Mike …

Chewie

Endor ?

endor?

Call for Massingbird!

"The killer was caught red-handed, with the knife in his hand and when the police arrived he said, 'I'm glad I killed the b*****d!'. Massingbird not only got him off, he also got him knighted in the new years honour's list and the victim's family had to pay to have the blood washed out of his clothes!"

@Ian Michael Gumby

I'm in a good mood today, so I'm going to call you a complete muppet instead of the string of four letter words that you deserve to be called.

Anyone - ANYONE - can file a subpoena against anyone to get anything, you twit. If it's sufficiently stupid, the judge denies it outright. If it's either a) not quite that stupid, or b) the judge doesn't get it, then you have to go and explain to the judge why they should deny it. Otherwise, you cough up the info or you go to jail (well, it's hard to throw a corporation in jail, so they usually start with huge fines, then individuals inside the corporation get threatened with jail time).

So, tell me, if I file a subpoena for your phone records because "this guy has been calling people he shouldn't be, really your honor, and I'm going to send him a bill" are you just going to sit around and let me do it? Because Mr. Assange, right or wrong, has every much of a right to defend both himself, his supporters, and potentially innocent people caught in the crossfire as you have the right to defend yourself. And if you don't get this, then I suggest you keep your stupid, ignorant trap shut about things you don't understand.

@Tim99

"Er, he did not allegedly 'steal' classified documents, the US Government still has them, he copied them."

Duh. -1 for the technicality. If that's the game you want to play, then should we also not go after people who steal credit card numbers with skimmers? After all, the consumer still has their card. The thieves just got a copy of the number.

@Tim99

Er... yeah, Manning did steal classified documents. Or do you not grok the meaning of theft, Is 99 your IQ or the year in which you were born?

Look its this simple. The cult of ASSange is falling apart.

3 books by 'liberal' papers and a former member of wikileaks can't all be wrong when they talk about your high priest of stupidity.

You should apologize to those women in Sweden. No means no, and if they say wear a raincoat, you wear a raincoat. That's the legal issue on the table and as much as Assange wants to cloud it with the impending doom of a charge from the US, thats all smoke and mirrors at this point.

@Daniel 4

I'd talk to a lawyer before you make a comment like that. There's this thing called a lawsuit that you have to file prior to trying to get a subpoena.

Now lets talk about subpoenas.

First you have to file the lawsuit. If there's no merit to your case and your lawyer suspects as much they won't file the lawsuit.

Then you have to have a justifiable reason for the subpoena.

But your lawyer can explain that to you.

Now for the fun part. Just because you file the subpoena doesn't mean that I have to respond. I can fight it. I can ignore it until you file a motion to compel.

But this isn't a law enforcement subpoena. On these, they are usually sealed and if you want to sue Twitter to see if they responded to any, they will tell you to fsck off. If you sue them and try to get a sub, their lawyer will just issue a response that the are prohibited to admit or deny if they had received anything so the are not going to say.. The judge will agree with them and he'll tell you to fsck off. Politely at first. Harsher if you insist and well your lawyer could face sanctions or even disbarment if he goes too far.

So you see, LE subs are a bit special and even if you junior birdman want to sue me, its not going to go anywhere.

@Ian Micheal Gumby

Seriously Ian; I have been worried about you, and your posts, for some time. Unless you have a particular reason for spending so much time on this topic, you need to lighten up or get help.

I appears that you are not very bothered about the US Government breaking its own laws, but you are very angry about Assange. Generally governments have much more power than an individual. As to whether Assange is guilty of sex crimes in Sweden, I don't know and you probably don't know either. We may find out (or not) IF he is extradited.

Perhaps you think that everything should be secret, it doesn't bother me so much since I retired.

So, not that it is any of your business, I will tell you that I was born in 1951. An IQ score by itself doesn't mean much but, many years ago, mine measured at 148.

Re: @Tim99

"3 books by 'liberal' papers and a former member of wikileaks can't all be wrong when they talk about your high priest of stupidity."

I hate to tackle you on this, not least because I agree with much that you 'write' because you deal with the facts and not subjectivity, however... ...the argumentum ad populum is not a valid technique in argument, that is, it is not a suitable foundation for epistemology; a certain dictator was extremely popular, at least in the early phases of his 'reign', but that did not make him right. In fact he triggered off a postwar debate between the logical positivists (who oppose anything remotely subjective) and the natural law philosophers; they came to agree that humans have one natural right, the right to life. That puts the argumentum ad populum bang into perspective.

@Scorchio!!

You are right.

The point I was trying to make is that when you have an insider making his own assessment of Assange, the articles in the press and their books also making similar assessments and the only rebuttal is Assange himself, I would tend to argue that there must be some truth in their criticism.

True the only way to confirm what is said is to meet and interview Assange yourself.

And its also true that the victors write the history books so you never know what really happened and can only find truth is when both opposing views agree upon facts.

And note I said "can't be all wrong" meaning that you still have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

Also note: Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and the NYT are 'liberal' media and not some 'right wing twisted viewpoint'.

@Tim99

Ok junior,

What laws exactly has the US Government broken that Wikileaks has exposed?

C'mon junior, seriously you want to trot out that liberal crap that has no foundation in logic?

The only lawbreaker has been Assange and he's fighting extradition to Sweden to face the charges. And before you trot out that excuse he hasn't been charged, the QC representing Sweden has already stated that the purpose of the EAW is so that they can proceed with criminal prosecution.

BTW, my money is on Assange getting extradited. Based on the skeletons the burden of proof is on the defense and they have failed to raise any real issue as to why he should be extradited to Sweden.

His defense lawyers failed and are trying to muddy the waters when he faces trial in Sweden.

Re: @Scorchio!!

Do no harm?

"More shocking, at this time, is that it amounts to an attack on the right to freedom of association, a freedom that the people of Tunisia and Egypt, for example, spurred on by the information released by WikiLeaks, have found so valuable."

Actually I thought it was the deliberate actions of a fruit vendor setting himself on fire after the police harassed him that was the central reason why the protests in Tunisia started.

And there's one more thing...

Al Jezeera never said who provided the leaked Palestinian papers which they published on their own leak site. Is this an admission by Wikileaks that they provided these documents?

Or is this just a case of Assange trying to "wrap himself in the flag" and try and take partial credit for the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt? And here the rest of the world thought the 'Brotherhood' was behind the uprising in Egypt? Silly me.

Brain falls on floor, gets squashed

So let's see, the PM of Sweden declaring randomly that some dude who isn't Swede and may or may not have had inappropriate touchings with Swedish ladies is "public enemy number uno" in Sweden can be somehow justified because....

Assange about to get schooled in Criminal Law

On the one hand. Assange is an ass when it comes to the ladies. But that's his Swedish problem.

(BTW anyone who has to tweet that they are at a party with some of the 'worlds smartest people' is definitely not a Mensa candidate. )

Yet I digress.

Mr. Assange is outraged and claims to be outside of US Jurisdiction.

Oh how wrong he is...

You see kiddies, when you hack in to a US Federal Server, or assist in a crime against the US, regardless of where you are... The US has every legal right to come after you. (Unless of course you're hiding out in a country which doesn't have an extradition treaty in which case, you're stuck in that country.)

You can replace the S with a K and you have the same rights. (Meaning the UK has the same legal rights if they were in the same position as the US.

The US Government has the right to use Law Enforcement Subpoenas to get access to information on Facebook, Twitter, whatever company that stores information, if it is pertinent to an ongoing investigation. Can an LE Sub be abused? Yes, I've had first hand experience. However, with respect to Assange... its not being abused.

Can Assanage's lawyers contact Facebook, Twitter and others? Sure and they can politely tell Assange's lawyers to fsck off. Could Assange's lawyers sue to get to get their answer? Maybe. But again, the lawyers for the Facebook, Twitter and others can cite the law and then have the judge to tell Assange to fsck off.

I don't know why Dershowitz is getting involved. There isn't an actual case in the US. Yet. Perhaps they know that the truth is going to get out and that they want to line up their own team of Windmill Chargers. Don't get me wrong. Dershowitz in his day did a lot of good before going on to becoming a law professor. But he lost my respect after defending OJ.

(F. Lee Bailey was a schmuck for getting Sam Shepard a new trial which is how he made his name.)

Fit up

This is a fit up. The new lawyer is here to help should the US win in its attempt to get Assange shipped off to Sweden. He his here for the Apeals should the Us win in its attempt to get Assange shipped off to Sweden. He is here should the US directly attempt to to get Assange shipped off to the US. He is here to try and reduce this fit up to a pile of rubble.

Why Ian Michael Gumby

I'm beginning to understand... you don't care about the rule of law, all you care about is seeing Julian Assange hang. If this were the wild west, you'd be at the front of the lynching party, holding the noose, wouldn't you?

I haven't seen even the suggestion of credible evidence that Assange, or even the entire wikileaks organization, broke the law in the process of receiving those cables. Manning did, and while he may or may not be considered a hero by some, he is elligible for a nice long spell in a military prison - no questions asked (at least, not by yours truly). You and your ilk, however, don't care. You and your ilk have always disgusted me; I've always felt that the lynch mob deserved what they dished out. Fortunately for you, frothing at the mouth isn't actually illegal, it's merely extremely distasteful.

IMG doesn't seem to know much about criminal law.

"The US has every legal right to come after you."

Every legal right? ORLY? I thunk US law ends at US borders so whether or not you get prosecuted depends entirely on the country you happen to be staying in. That's not quite the same as 'every legal right' now, is it?

What you seem to mean is that US law says they can prosecute you (which is true), and that US law is universal (which is false).

The US doesn't have every legal right to come after you: They just have some legal rights to come after you.

Poor Daniel..

Actually you've got it all wrong.

I do care about the rules of law.

You've got a guy fighting extradition to Sweden because under Swedish law he has allegedly committed Rape. In terms of the LAW, he needs to go back to Sweden so they can charge him and then have a trial. Sure he's innocent until proven guilty, however based on what is in the public eye, there is enough evidence to bring charges against him. That doesn't mean he's going to be found guilty, but that there's a credible case.

Its the fantasy that he's going to be extradited to the US if he's sent to Sweden that I have a problem with.

Then you do have the potential of a case against him in the US.

Was Wikileaks merely a conduit of information? Or did Wikileaks and Assange assist in the theft. We don't know, and the US DoJ is currently investigating individuals involved with Wikileaks and could have something to do with the theft.

The courts granted a LE sub or actually multiple subs. Depending on what they determine they have the ability to charge Assange. Again, that's a question of if they find something. That jury is still out and it has Assange and his lawyers scared.

Oh, dear

Birds of a feather

Just as birds of a feather fly together so do criminals and paid liars. Let's hope Assange becomes OJ's cellmate for twenty years. What goes around usually comes around and Assange will pay for his actions - all of them.

Meh...

Assange and Wikileaks are one in the same. Openleaks? Seems ok to me if they actually are trying to assist whistle blowers.

Are they?

Clearly Wikileaks isn't and hasn't a good track record other than making Assange rich off of its dupe supporters.

Really?

Ankle bracelet and tromping around the English countryside.... vs prison cells for those who supplied Wikileaks info.

One is on bail Accused of something, the other is in jail Accused of something. Now I don't think the second should be in jail but he is a part of the military and did "sign his life away". They really do need to get down to a trial with him because it is becoming cruel without a conviction!

Assange on the other hand may not have a charge to defend, as far as I'm aware there are not even charges against him in respect of the leaks!

Failure

Openleaks has shown nothing yet, for all we know they might even be a US.gov sponsored operation.

On the other hand Wikipedia has existed since 2006 and denounced many global scams well before but apparently it only becomes a serious problem when it decides to go after the US.gov..

Not sure how you can blame Assange for the treatment of whistleblowers. Wikileaks has publicly spoken against the treatment of Bradley Manning many times and contributed to his defence fund.

One would expect that in democratic societies the media and public would pick it up and ask their government why is this happening to one of their own. If Manning was a chinese dissident I'm sure the US media and gov would be all over him.

I'd call this is a failure of the US as a society.

What else can Wikileaks and Assange really do about it? Launch a special ops operation to rescue him?

This is also what worries me when people claim Assange is safe because if the US were to "ship" him over there would be a media shitstorm. Given the current environment I suspect it wouldn't cause anything much, so he can't really be too careful.

@Hooch

Wikileaks was floundering until the released an edited version of a chopper's firing on a group of people. According to the NYT (New York Times) Assange edited out an insurgent carrying an RPG.

Ooops! Kind of puts the entire thing in perspective if you understand the RoE. ( You do know what RoE means, right?)

So there was no crime, no whistle blowing, just Assange editing the truth to give an incorrect perception.

Then Wikileaks dumps a ton of after action reports. No whistle blowing or crimes uncovered. Unless of course you consider that Assange didn't care if he put anyone in harms way. Now what was that quote? If they assisted the US then they deserve what they get? Is that a fair paraphrase?

Then the dump of the diplomatic cables. No whistle blowing, no crime, nothing. All dumped in an effort to embarrass the US.

As to those who supplied leaks. (One banker and one soldier) Both in jail.

Assange does have charges against him in Sweden, or haven't you paid attention? Sweden will charge him when he's in Sweden after the UK honors the extradition request.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your praise for St. Julian of ASSange the patron saint of commentards....

@Hooch

"Until we see the (uncut) footage it's all really academic. Never put much importance in that anyway, war is war."

Actually its not academic. NYT has reportedly seen the footage. As to war is war... not true.

The torturing of prisoners is not justifiable. Abu Ghraib ?sp? was criminal and those involved were charged. But that's not Wikileaks. That was insiders blowing the whistle.

The fact that Assange edited the video in an attempt to accuse the US of committing a war crime when in fact, there was no war crime is important.

Rules of Engagement exist for a reason. While the insurgents and Taliban ignore RoE and don't care about civilian casualties, the US and Allied forces do. When the US violates the RoE and a war crime has occurred, I expect those involved to be charged and if found guilty punished.

@Ian Michael Gumby

Good on the NYT, so when they going to let the rest of us see it? Just someone saying they saw something is not proof. I'm not saying he did or didn't edit it. I'm saying I haven't seen any proof that he did!

What "Fact" that he edited it? All we have is what some hack at the NYT says he saw. If it's true let them show it, not like it is going to hurt anyone except Assange if what the NYT is saying is true!

The Insurgents/Taliban do not ignore RoE, they don't have any RoE. There is a difference!

So, back to the question, How many lives have been lost due to the leaks?

What charges (in relation to the leaks) have been made?

The Grand Jury in Virginia hasn't said anything about what they have found. That doesn't mean they have found anything and are being hush. It doesn't mean they haven't found anything either.

The only information that we have gotten (and that is "off the record") is that they are having a hard time finding any connection proving that he influenced Manning (Allegedly) to give them the documents.

Personally, I think they are fishing, but who knows? I may be wrong and they find some email or something, but as of right now they don't seem to have squat!

You are preapproved for a free trip...

"...claim that prosecutors must charge him with an offence, and therefore disclose the evidence against him, in order to qualify for extradition."

No, that's not true. We can just send him to Guantanamo any time we... wait, did you say EXTRAdition? I thought you said RENdition, because here in the US, we routinely disappear people to other countries without any kind of due process. It's practically legal if they've been publicly accused of terrorism.

I get those two things confused all the time! Of course you can't extradite someone without some sort of reason. Heh, silly me. Is it beer time yet?

Still unbalanced

Well considering the UK prosecution lawyer for Sweden, Clare Montgomery, has defended Pinochet and a series of other dictators in the past, I think even with one of OJ's lawyers Assange's team is still negatively unbalanced.

And I'm not sure what criminal actions are being mentioned by other commenters? Are worldwide journalists that don't follow the US government's line now criminals by definition in the US (and thus free to be extradited from almost anywhere)? How uncannily similar to some "lesser" undemocratic countries...

So where's the basis for these subpoenas, esp those targeted at foreign individuals?

What I can't understand is why is Assange, who really is just a messenger in all this, being more publicly criticised than the actual criminals in government. Why exactly is some of public condoning these people?

Re: Still unbalanced

"Well considering the UK prosecution lawyer for Sweden, Clare Montgomery, has defended Pinochet and a series of other dictators in the past, I think even with one of OJ's lawyers Assange's team is still negatively unbalanced."

Ah, that old trick; the argumentum ad hominem/smear trick. Did you forget that, in the UK, if a lawyer is approached by a client, they cannot refuse unless the case is outside of their field of expertise?

Claire Montgomery had no choice but to defend Pinochet, since he approached her, she had the skills and her case load permitted it.

I know that your argument is negatively balanced, that is it is couched in terms of the argumentum ad hominem, but don't let that stop you looking the fool. It suits you.

Ad nauseam

@Schorchio

Wasn't the original theme of the article to smear Assange's defence by stating a connection to OJ Simpson?

Irrespective of Claire Montgomery's choice in the matter, your argument just reinforces that she has picked by the Swedes for her unique set of skills. Which includes her vast background in defending Pinochet, Berlusconi and the PM of Thailand and as prosecution for Rwadan genocide and Serbia war.

Surely she is a bit too overqualified for an unproven, vague, rape case?

If you think trying to put things into perspective makes me look like a fool maybe a mirror is in order?

Re: Ad nauseam

"@Schorchio

Wasn't the original theme of the article to smear Assange's defence by stating a connection to OJ Simpson?

Irrespective of Claire Montgomery's choice in the matter and that of the Swedes, your argument just reinforces that she has picked by the Swedes for her unique set of skills. Which includes her vast background in defending Pinochet, Berlusconi and the PM of Thailand and as prosecution for Rwadan genocide and Serbia war.

Surely she is a bit too overqualified for an unproven, vague, rape case?

If you think trying to put things into perspective makes me look like a fool maybe a mirror is in order?"

The original theme of the article is irrelevant, and it does not make the illicit technique in argument/smear any the better. Your response is of the 'please sir, please sir, she's nasty, believe me sir' variety.

So the woman is good at her job, good enough for people to pick her and, as you remember, she has no option but to take the job when approached if her skillset and workload permit. Did you not understand me the first time?

Overqualified? Are you an expert in law? Do you have the right to call on the matter? Do you think that, because of your feelings, Claire Montgomery ought to breach her professional oaths and turn the Swedes away? What would happen to her professional rights to practise do you think? All because little old you, in a comment and opinion forum, decided its 'nathty'?

Look in the mirror and stop focusing on me, focus on the facts. Finishing up your flawed argumenta with another specimen of the argumentum ad hominem merely makes you look silly, and it certainly won't change the facts.

Re: Ad nauseam

"Surely she is a bit too overqualified for an unproven, vague, rape case?"

One more point; the fact that it is unproven makes the case like any other facing a lawyer, defence or prosecution, and that is the point; lawyers work with the unproven and set out to prove that their clients claims are true, not that of their opponents.

So I am afraid to say that you have just emitted a damp squib in the form of a non sequitur argument; that is, it does not follow from your claims that this is an 'unproven, vague, rape case' that she is 'a bit overqualified'. Indeed these are signs that a top flight lawyer is needed, but you knew that didn't you because.

Sorry, Julian.....

Unfortunately, the twitter messages are fair game considering that the U.S. is investigating the possibility of a conspiracy between Wikileaks and Bradley Manning to get the info that Manning had onto Wikileaks, as well as looking for evidence against Bradley Manning himself.

Now maybe the Twitter messages are going to be nothing but a collection of "Keep fighting the power, Julian!" or "You were an animal in bed last night Julian!!---XOXOXO--Inge". But what if a couple of them say "B. Manning doesn't like U.S. foreign policy, and with encouragement might divulge docs he can get" or "For $5K, Bradley is ready to hand over the CDs he burned".

As anyone who has watched an American cop show can tell you, "anything you say can or will be used against you". That doesn't just apply to verbal communication and snail-mail.